You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

So people should just assume your brain starts over each day or what? How long ago does it have to be before it's "the past." The post I'm referring to was like a couple weeks ago.

I... guess so.

To be honest, it's really embarrassing that I'm so fickle. :blushing: It's just that... when I see a particular topic, I'm really only thinking about that my current view of everything related to that, filtered by whatever perspective I have on it at the moment I make the post.

I think about this stuff and change my mind on a regular basis. But I'm usually not aware of having changed my mind upon gathering new information, and think that I've known and understood what I'm thinking about now all along... because it seems so obvious now.

Perhaps you should just stop paying attention to me... my perspectives are a little bit weird and crazy, and possibly not worth listening to.

Sigh... now I kind of wish I just never said anything at all and kept my ideas to myself. They never make enough sense to be relevant to anyone besides myself at the time I'm thinking about them, anyway.

Athenian, I wish you wouldn't beat yourself up in text so much. Your opinions are just as valid as the next person's. When I challenge someone's views on here, it's for the sake of clarity and maybe us all reaching a better understanding. It's not in any way to try to downgrade that person. I respect and admire you for putting your views out there for scrutiny. It's the only way people can hash things out is if they communicate.

Anyway, to answer your earlier question, David Keirsey has a tremendous wealth of experience in studying people. He has made it his life's work. Does that mean that all the conclusions he comes to are automatically infallible? Of course not. But he goes into a lot of detail backing up his theories and I think he makes a ton of sense. Which is quite unusual for me to admit about anyone writing on abstract subjects.

Once again, why are those the right ones? Why is using the same old four humor categories that have been recycled by Hippocrates, Galen, Kant, Kretschmer, and now Keirsey, automatically the right choice? You aren't even questioning it. Why? All of your answers are based on past categorizations.

That's a nice theory, and it looks good on paper. The question, then, is why do NFJs find it so much harder to understand NFPs, and vice-versa, than STJs do SFJs, or SFPs do STPs? That so-called "core need" is approached so differently that I can't understand their way of seeing things at all. They may be pursuing something that seems kind of similar on ONE LEVEL that seems rather arbitrarily defined, but it's so different on other levels that they can hardly be compared. You've basically described the theory behind dividing the temperaments in that way, but you haven't shown why that theory is more justified. You act as if it doesn't need any justification because it's already established.

I'm actually not assigning any such value to it ("the right choice", "more justified", etc). I'm just showing the link between the so-called "modern" theory and the ancient one. That's it's ultimately the same system, viewed through different angles, basically.
I did acknowledge other possible groupings that can have meaning (p2), but temperament is viewed as the most fundamental because of the core needs, even though under the cognitive angle, two of them approach their need in different ways.

And looking at Interaction Styles as also a kind of temperament, each type is a different blend of one temperament with another. So that's where the clash can come from within the same temperament, viewing it from the temperamental angle. Otherwise, everyone who is not a pure Keirseyite will acknowledge the cognitive process clash. Both models are employed at the same tim. This is what Berens calls the "Multiple Model".
And won't there still be some similar (though hot as extensive) clashes between SFP's and STP's; and SFJ's and STJ's, because of the different judging functions?

Athenian, I wish you wouldn't beat yourself up in text so much. Your opinions are just as valid as the next person's. When I challenge someone's views on here, it's for the sake of clarity and maybe us all reaching a better understanding. It's not in any way to try to downgrade that person. I respect and admire you for putting your views out there for scrutiny. It's the only way people can hash things out is if they communicate.

Okay, that's true. It's just that I'm embarrassed that my perspectives aren't consistent. One little word could change how I perceive something enough to make me say something completely different about it than I normally would have. My words usually aren't focused so much on communicating impersonal facts, so much as twisting things in such a way as to get the other person to look at the problem the same way I'm looking at it.

It's the mental equivalent of pointing to something, noticing the other person can't see it because they're standing at the wrong angle and something is in their way, and then motioning for them to come over to where I am, and look at it from the same place I'm looking at it from. So I end up looking very silly and inconsistent when you compare my reactions to similar situations across time, even if I made sense at the time I said it. And the best excuse I can come up with is, "Well, I'm not standing over there anymore. I'm standing over HERE now, and the light is different, so it looks different."

It's an excuse few respect, because most people see it as better to stand in the same place their whole lives, under the same light, staring at the same thing, and write down everything that they observe about it. I look absurd because I keep moving around and changing the lighting, expecting to discover the nature of what I'm looking at more completely.

I know that didn't make any sense, but it was all I could come up with.

Anyway, to answer your earlier question, David Keirsey has a tremendous wealth of experience in studying people. He has made it his life's work. Does that mean that all the conclusions he comes to are automatically infallible? Of course not. But he goes into a lot of detail backing up his theories and I think he makes a ton of sense. Which is quite unusual for me to admit about anyone writing on abstract subjects.

He does make sense from his perspective, if you accept it as your own. But he doesn't make sense from a lot of other perspectives. In fact, there are more perspectives that he DOESN'T make sense from, than ones he does.

The main one I'm looking at, is that NFJs and NFPs usually don't understand one another very well despite supposedly having the same "core needs." They may look similar simply because of the focus on identity, but their values and perspectives are so different that it seems like a meaningless similarity compared to many other similarities.

I'm actually not assigning any such value to it ("the right choice", "more justified", etc). I'm just showing the link between the so-called "modern" theory and the ancient one. That's it's ultimately the same system, viewed through different angles, basically.
I did acknowledge other possible groupings that can have meaning (p2), but temperament is viewed as the most fundamental because of the core needs, even though under the cognitive angle, two of them approach their need in different ways.

Yes. I guess I just don't believe that the core needs I share with NFPs are significant enough to justify putting me in the same category from the "default" perspective. NFPs aren't horrible, but I'm still extremely uncomfortable being grouped with people that are so different from me on so many levels.

And looking at Interaction Styles as also a kind of temperament, each type is a different blend of one temperament with another. So that's where the clash can come from within the same temperament, viewing it from the temperamental angle. Otherwise, everyone who is not a pure Keirseyite will acknowledge the cognitive process clash. Both models are employed at the same time. This is what Berens calls the "Multiple Model".
And won't there still be some similar (though not as extensive) clashes between SFP's and STP's; and SFJ's and STJ's, because of the different judging functions?

Interaction styles do make a bit more sense. I guess there are clashes between those types, but it seems a little ridiculous to me that the more significant clashes NFJs have with NFPs are considered so negligible.

Maybe the reason temperament works well for most people, is because NPs are so much more common than NJs in the general population.

Both very people-oriented, enthusiastic, excitable, like to debate, constantly inventing and sharing new ideas they thought up, always lots of enthusiasm but rarely anywhere near as much followthrough, often appear "flaky"/unreliable because something more interesting distracted them, etc etc. No stereotypes intended, just what I've observed casually, since I don't know many ENxPs very well.

You know, mostly Ne stuff. If you feel more similar to ENTJs I can't argue with that, since I can only observe.

no, thats fair

its true, ENFP and ENTP are very similar, especially when it comes to the social aspect of things and life in general...very very relaxed...pretty much anything goes

ENTJ...we can have a good conversation and i actually trust an ENTJs opinion on things more than that of ENFP (this is only true for the ones i know though)

i can't always trust the ENFP perspective simply because it doesn't always makes sense to me...maybe its not as logically directed as the ENTJ justification (attributed to Te)